Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #46

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Visiting here to check on progress towards justice for Allison, on a daily basis. (Tick Tock, Tick Tock). Have seen some news/current affairs reports this evening, regarding the case of Nadine Haag - is there an existing thread for this case Marly? Some parallels to Allison's case, eg partner alleging suicide for one. Find it strange that this one has flown pretty much under the radar, news wise - I was unaware of it until now, & I watch a lot of news programs. Does anyone else know much about Nadine 's case?? Thinking that when GBC goes to trial, I am going to have to take Annual Leave for the duration - wouldn't be able to concentrate at work anyway.... So sad to not be able to turn back time, & tell her to get the hell out of there - Take your babies and run!
 
Ooohm said:
She is doing the right thing by her clients; more than likely the courts do not often push too hard for confidential material. This is something all counsellors must anticipate when beginning practice.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with the principle here - as a medico, what is said and found in my sessions with patients is at LEAST as confidential as a counselor's sessions, if not more so. And the courts can, and do, regularly subpoena patient records for evidence, as I have posted earlier.

I really don't see WHY counseling sessions should be treated any differently.

If the prosecution AND the defence want that evidence, and particularly if the sole surviving member of those sessions - GBC - has no objections, then I fail to see that Carmel or the Relationships Australia mob have any legal legs to stand on. I really am intrigued as to just WHY she is objecting to giving evidence. Which makes me wonder if there isn't some backside-covering going on there....
:confused:
 
Estelle said:
I have since accessed this link:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...fekiller-gerard-badenclay-20120626-210bz.html

April 12, 2012
Police allege Mr Baden-Clay inquired about one of Mrs Baden-Clay's life insurance policies but was given no information as he was not a policy holder.

April 17, 2012
Police allege the Baden-Clay financial adviser made a "further query" on a life insurance policy held by Mrs Baden-Clay.

Mr Baden-Clay had also told police he and Mrs Baden-Clay had been attending counselling services over his infidelity, which had ceased. He said the counsellor had advised they talk about the infidelity and relationship issues for 15 minute blocks at night.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...d-badenclay-20120626-210bz.html#ixzz2djufwY4s

So it appears that the husband's motive for murder was to access his wife's insurance policy to help to resolve his financial difficulties. I wonder how much her policy was worth?

If he had debts over one million dollars, why didn't he just go bankrupt?

IMO advice about talking about the husband's infidelity and relationship issues in 15 minute blocks every night is not IMO a very good idea as it is a negative way to go rather than encouraging them to talk about the positive things which were the reason they got together in the first place.
Click to expand...
BBM:

Estelle, I totally agree with you about the 15 minute blocks of discussion. IMO this would be more harmful than beneficial. We do have to remember though that this information came from GBC and I'm wondering if this is the whole crux of the matter with the counsellor. Perhaps both the Prosecution and the Defence want this clarified also. Did the counsellor in fact advise Allison and GBC to do this or is it yet another lie from GBC? I'm leaning towards the latter.
 
One thing I meant to mention the other day is that is also depends if the counsellor is registered with a Board. i.e. if she is a psychologist, she is likely registered with the APS. Confidentiality is a professional ethics issue - there are 'rules' that govern a psychologist's practice, in addition to legal parameters.

She is described as a counsellor, but she may be a psych. I'm not sure of the latest on counsellor ethics - I know they are recommended, but not sure if there is actually a board yet that oversees ethical practice (I know they were looking at setting one up if they haven't already).
 
Excellent information Strangeworld - thanks for that.

But none of that is really any different from my situation or that of any other medico. We're sworn to confidentiality too. But that is trumped by a subpoena every time.

I just can't see what the problem is here - either she is trying to protect herself (in which case a subpoena can still make her give evidence) or she is trying to claim some sort of exception along the lines of a priest in the confessional - which doesn't wash with me, I'm afraid.
 
Agree, Doc. The only other thing may be that issue with the Family Law Act. It clouds the whole situation, because one section states what is said in front of a family counsellor is not admissible in court.

I'm sure there's some legal scrambling going on behind the scenes at Relationships Australia. But like it's been said before, this would definitely not be the first time this scenario has happened. Surely there is precedent?

I also am really curious what was said to Allison and GBC about confidentiality when they started counselling. I'm sure Relationships Australia would have standard forms that clients sign. Were these signed by them? If GBC is in agreement to the release of information, I really can't see an issue in disclosure.

Wonder what the deal is?
 
DrWatson said:
Excellent information Strangeworld - thanks for that.

But none of that is really any different from my situation or that of any other medico. We're sworn to confidentiality too. But that is trumped by a subpoena every time.

I just can't see what the problem is here - either she is trying to protect herself (in which case a subpoena can still make her give evidence) or she is trying to claim some sort of exception along the lines of a priest in the confessional - which doesn't wash with me, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

I hope everyone is taking me seriously. I see a counsellor every week because of my family and their death. I speak freely in a supportive environment about my grief. Allison was in grief, so she may have said anything but I doubt it. Big boy doesn't like her undies. TM was told they were not intimate for years.
 
DrWatson said:
Not sure I agree with the principle here - as a medico, what is said and found in my sessions with patients is at LEAST as confidential as a counselor's sessions, if not more so. And the courts can, and do, regularly subpoena patient records for evidence, as I have posted earlier.

I really don't see WHY counseling sessions should be treated any differently.

If the prosecution AND the defence want that evidence, and particularly if the sole surviving member of those sessions - GBC - has no objections, then I fail to see that Carmel or the Relationships Australia mob have any legal legs to stand on. I really am intrigued as to just WHY she is objecting to giving evidence. Which makes me wonder if there isn't some backside-covering going on there....
:confused:
Click to expand...


Doc, I totally agree with you. Having been a child protection worker, I certainly understood the confidential nature of my work, but NEVER made any absolute guarantee to maintain confidentiality. I thought Relationships Australia worked this way also - just like doctors. So maybe they are covering up some incompetence on their behalf. Some of that stuff written in earlier days about having to talk for 15 minutes a day about GBC's infidelities always seemed a bit sus to me.

R.A. stop hiding and give evidence - a murder was committed!
 
Strangeworld said:
Agree, Doc. The only other thing may be that issue with the Family Law Act. It clouds the whole situation, because one section states what is said in front of a family counsellor is not admissible in court.
Click to expand...

Strangeworld, I think you have hit the legal nail on the head here. The issue re the Relationships Australia evidence is about admissibility as opposed to confidentiality. Doc, when you were talking about being served with a subpoena to give evidence about confidential information about a patient, that has doctor patient confidentially but there is no legislation that says it cannot be used in any court.
We have a specific prohibition in the Family Law Act that prohibits evidence from a counselling session in any court. Thats the difference.

I don't believe that there is anything either from Carmen or her employer, that is personal in their legal position not to give evidence. They are simply saying, we are abiding by the specific prohibition in the Family Law Act and we will wait to see what a judge decides about this legal issue. I also believe if the judge rules it is admissible, they will give evidence.
 
Ali, when there is evidence that is inadmissible, is it up to the person to provide the information requested, then the courts say yay or nay on whether it can be presented, or is it up to the individual counsellor/organisation to not provide evidence because it is inadmissible? Hope that makes sense - so logically I would think RA should just provide the file/statement, and let the courts deem it admissible or not. But it doesn't seem to be happening.

I'm so not a legal mind, so your help would be great on this point :)
 
Estelle said:
I have come late to this case, so as a retired Relationship Counsellor, I am curious as to what has been revealed about their marriage so far.

For example, were both husband and wife seeking counselling to save their marriage or did one party want to separate and the other party did not want to despite infidelity of the husband and the financial difficulties of his real estate business?

Have any of you got any ideas about the husband's motive for wanting his wife's demise? Was she unwilling to separate for the sake of the children?

If their relationship was so bad, why didn't they separate earlier? Not all marriages can be saved! I hope the Relationship Counsellor did not give them false hope. If the husband was so unhappy, why didn't he just separate and live somewhere else? Murder (alleged) is not the best solution! Was Alison in total denial? Or was the real problem the financial difficulties they were facing?
Click to expand...

Welcome Estelle, thought I would try to sum up what we know/think for you. GBC claims they were having counselling to save their marriage after Allison found out about his long term affair with Toni McHugh. He broke off with Toni months before Allison died, but appears to have resumed it. We don't know if Allison had found out that he was back on with her or for that matter his other 2 girlfriends. He was busy boy. Toni has told the police that he was going to leave Allison to be with her in the near future and that he told her that just hours before Allison went missing.

They had extreme financial difficulties and Allison had just under a million in life insurance policies which he was overly hasty to claim on, allegedly contacting one of the insurance companies the day her body was found.

I think Allison wanted to save her marriage and not be seen or feel a failure for a failed marriage. I also think she loved him. I think he would have made a show at counselling at trying to save his marriage and I think that is why the defence want the counselling evidence to be admissible.

Estelle said:
So it appears that the husband's motive for murder was to access his wife's insurance policy to help to resolve his financial difficulties. I wonder how much her policy was worth? Yes, this is what the prosecution allege.

If he had debts over one million dollars, why didn't he just go bankrupt? I would suggest his high profile standing in the local and business community and his personality wouldn't allow that to happen.
Click to expand...

Estelle said:
Something I had never heard before is "taking the fifth":

He has actually explained this on the basis that he and his parents were watching a TV program "The good wife", a day or two before Allison went missing, and there were lots of references to "taking the fifth". We have checked the episode and found this to be true. He says his mother asked him what that meant so he googled it. He claims his search refreshed on his phone the morning he reported Allison missing when he was looking up the police phone number. The prosecution have not said to my knowledge that they accept that explanation, but it is a good explanation.




I am glad I do not have a life insurance policy then!
Click to expand...
 
Strangeworld said:
Ali, when there is evidence that is inadmissible, is it up to the person to provide the information requested, then the courts say yay or nay on whether it can be presented, or is it up to the individual counsellor/organisation to not provide evidence because it is inadmissible? Hope that makes sense - so logically I would think RA should just provide the file/statement, and let the courts deem it admissible or not. But it doesn't seem to be happening.

I'm so not a legal mind, so your help would be great on this point :)
Click to expand...

Good questions, you are thinking like a legal mind! Being inadmissible in court doesn't mean it won't be given to the parties, just that it can't be used in court. I recall reading a report this week, but I am too tired to find the link now, that said the defence already had the evidence of the counselling sessions and they wanted it to be admissible. Not sure if the prosecution have it too. I think they would have to if the defence have it.
So I do think that probably you are right and RA has already handed over at least a copy of the file notes and the court is yet to determine its admissibility. I wonder, and this sounds silly but its not legally silly, is the evidence admissible in the court hearing to determine if it is admissible in the criminal proceedings? it just gets murkier, this legal mumbo jumbo.
 
alioop said:
We have a specific prohibition in the Family Law Act that prohibits evidence from a counselling session in any court. Thats the difference.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Ali

However, while I know there is absolutely no point in asking the question "Why?" about something that is apparently enshrined in a law..... but WHY?

Why should counseling sessions be any more confidential than doctor-patient sessions? Or, in particular, psychiatrist-patient sessions? Are they implying in that law that there are "more" confidential reasons to keep private a session between a counselor or a psychologist and a patient, than say, a psychiatrist? Or any other doctor? Are they putting themselves on the same astral plane as a priest in a confessional? (And I don't really agree with the inability to subpoena priests either, by the way).

If I can be forced to testify to a court that a patient has haemorrhoids and to provide photos of them if I took any (Heaven forbid..!) even if the patient doesn't want that information to get out, why should counseling sessions be any different?

I guess what I'm getting at is the reason such a provision was actually put into the law. I never knew that counselors had more protection from legal intrusion than the rest of us. Why was that provision put in there? It is in cases like this one that the law seems to be seen as an *advertiser censored* for having such nonsense in it. Just my 'umble opinion ;) :stormingmad:
 
alioop said:
Good questions, you are thinking like a legal mind! Being inadmissible in court doesn't mean it won't be given to the parties, just that it can't be used in court. I recall reading a report this week, but I am too tired to find the link now, that said the defence already had the evidence of the counselling sessions and they wanted it to be admissible. Not sure if the prosecution have it too. I think they would have to if the defence have it.
So I do think that probably you are right and RA has already handed over at least a copy of the file notes and the court is yet to determine its admissibility. I wonder, and this sounds silly but its not legally silly, is the evidence admissible in the court hearing to determine if it is admissible in the criminal proceedings? it just gets murkier, this legal mumbo jumbo.
Click to expand...

Haha ali! You're wearing off on me :)

Interesting about how the info may already be in the hands of both defense and prosecution. The legal plot thickens...
 
I'm so with you on this Doc. I haven't worked much in child and family issues, but I can definitely say that general psych's probably don't have much more protection than you, unless they class themselves as 'family counsellors' under the family law act. From my point of view (hopeless at law, but ali's teaching me!!) the family law act seems to be an old document that had good constitutional intentions - like it wanted to make sure individuals involved in family issues could speak openly without fear of recourse. But it just conflicts so much with other legislation, it almost seems pointless having such a clause saying EVERYTHING stated in front of a family counsellor is inadmissible. Way too broad and contradictory to other laws.

For general psych's, there's always legal and ethical considerations. But it has been drilled into me that legal always overrides ethical, regardless. And that's why open communication with clients is essential - they know we will do what we can to protect a client's privacy, but when it comes to the crunch, legal requests and the personal safety of them and others usually wins out. Sometimes subpoenas will be fought, but this is usually in relation to the safety of the client or others - like if information was released that could potentially put someone's life in harm's way, the psych may be very hesitant to have that information revealed.

But I don't understand the issue with this case.
 
DrWatson said:
Not sure I agree with the principle here - as a medico, what is said and found in my sessions with patients is at LEAST as confidential as a counselor's sessions, if not more so. And the courts can, and do, regularly subpoena patient records for evidence, as I have posted earlier.

I really don't see WHY counseling sessions should be treated any differently.

If the prosecution AND the defence want that evidence, and particularly if the sole surviving member of those sessions - GBC - has no objections, then I fail to see that Carmel or the Relationships Australia mob have any legal legs to stand on. I really am intrigued as to just WHY she is objecting to giving evidence. Which makes me wonder if there isn't some backside-covering going on there....
:confused:
Click to expand...


AMEN Doc Watson!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 77 more.
Total: 236 (members: 78, guests: 158)

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
158
Total visitors
236
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,634
Messages
18,242,712
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top